diaspora-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of diaspora life (community, tax, verification, dual citizenship, immigration, investment) with no overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent snake_case naming pattern with descriptive suffixes like _guide or _verification, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized diaspora information service—neither too few nor too many for its purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the key areas of diaspora guidance: community, tax, legal status, and investment, with no obvious gaps for the intended domain.
Average 2.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 23 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 18, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavior. It only says 'DEMO' implying limited functionality, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks essential context. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, as it leaves critical information unstated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter and no annotations, the description should clarify the tool's output and usage. It fails to do so, offering only a vague phrase and 'DEMO'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the budget_usd parameter's purpose or how it affects results. The parameter is left entirely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Investment options for Kenya diaspora investing back home. DEMO.' indicates a domain but lacks a specific verb or action (e.g., list, recommend, search). It is unclear whether the tool returns a list or performs a calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like diaspora_tax_guide or diaspora_community_guide. The description does not specify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Services for...' without explaining what happens (e.g., verification result, side effects). The 'DEMO' label hints at limited functionality but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it contains filler ('Services for... use. DEMO.') and lacks clarity. It could be more structured by stating the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description should still provide context. It does not explain the return value or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the single parameter 'document_type' or its purpose. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or description, the agent gets no guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates the tool is for 'diaspora identity verification and document authentication for Kenya use,' which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., verify, authenticate) and is somewhat vague with 'Services.' It ends with 'DEMO,' suggesting it may be non-functional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are guides, so no direct comparison is provided. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only notes 'DEMO' without detailing behavior, side effects, authentication needs, or output structure. Leaves agent uncertain about the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, but sacrifices necessary detail. Structure is minimal and front-loaded with the core purpose, yet incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters with no schema descriptions and no explanation of output, the description is insufficient. Output schema exists but is not referenced; agent cannot infer how to invoke or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and description fails to explain how 'status' and 'country' parameters affect the response. No added meaning beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it answers common immigration questions for Kenyans in USA, UK, or Canada, and includes 'DEMO' to indicate its nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like diaspora_tax_guide or dual_citizenship_guide, but could be more specific about the scope of questions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the demo annotation hints at limited applicability but lacks explicit instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'by country' but does not disclose what happens with invalid countries, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or if the response is paginated. The output schema exists but is not described, so behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence + 'DEMO'), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. 'DEMO' is unclear and may mislead. The structure is minimal, but it is front-loaded with the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description should explain what the output contains (e.g., list of organisations, details). It does not. The complexity is low, but the description omits essential context like the scope of resources or output format, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage for the single parameter 'country', the description adds minimal semantic value by stating 'by country'. It does not explain the default value 'USA', possible values (no enum), or the effect of omitting the parameter. The description barely compensates for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'Kenya diaspora community resources and organisations by country', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like diaspora_tax_guide or diaspora_verification. The verb 'guide' implies a listing or directory. However, the inclusion of 'DEMO' adds ambiguity about whether the tool is functional or a placeholder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It is implicit that it is for finding community resources, but no explicit alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned. The description does not clarify when one would choose this over, say, diaspora_tax_guide for tax information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes 'DEMO', implying it may not be a production tool, but does not elaborate on what that means (e.g., limited data, no real-time info). It also lacks any disclosure about side effects, permissions, or data accuracy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'DEMO' tag adds ambiguity and is unnecessary for functional description. Could be improved by removing or explaining 'DEMO'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single optional parameter and low complexity, the description could be adequate, but it lacks parameter guidance and usage context. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to explain return structure. The 'DEMO' label also undermines completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter 'residence_country'. It does not. The agent cannot infer that this parameter tailors the advice based on the user's country of residence or that it defaults to 'USA'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool covers tax obligations for Kenya diaspora with dual tax considerations for US/UK/CA, distinguishing it from sibling tools like diaspora_community_guide or immigration_status_guide. However, it uses a noun phrase ('Tax obligations for Kenya diaspora') rather than a verb, and the 'DEMO' label may confuse agents about its production readiness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts (e.g., residency status, citizenship), or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the noun phrase alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool is 'guidance' and includes 'DEMO', which may indicate limited functionality, but does not explain read/write behavior, side effects, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise at 7 words, but the inclusion of 'DEMO' is ambiguous and not beneficial. Lacks structured format, but brevity is a positive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simplicity (1 optional param, output schema exists), description omits what the tool returns, how parameters affect output, and does not help the agent decide if this tool fits the user's need. Incomplete for a guidance tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter (current_citizenship). The description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving its meaning and usage entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool provides guidance on Kenya dual citizenship, covering eligibility, process, and rights. It distinguishes from sibling tools like diaspora_tax_guide by topic, but lacks a verb-action indicating what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like immigration_status_guide or diaspora_community_guide. User must infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![diaspora-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmahia/diaspora-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmahia/diaspora-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![diaspora-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmahia/diaspora-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmahia/diaspora-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gabrielmahia/diaspora-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server